During the Cold War ideological confrontations, inter-state conflicts and extremely costly and risky arms races were seen as the most dangerous threats against peace and security. Since with its end much of these threats seemed to have disappeared, it was widely expected that a new, more peaceful era could begin. Peace dividend, comprehensive conversion, sustainable development, global peace and justice in a civil society were the key words. The 1990s experienced reductions of troops, arms and budgets, resources that were available now for civil purposes. Today we see more non-military approaches included in international conflict management such as in UN and EU peace activities, or through the increased participation of NGOs/CSOs, as well.

However, the end of the Cold War also witnessed a change in conflict patterns and the world faced a new generation of challenges for peace and security. Regional conflicts with ethnic, religious and/or economic-political background appeared in the Balkans, East and Central Africa, the Middle East, Caucasus or Central Asia. Recently the world is experiencing violent and non-violent mass upheavals, overthrow of authoritarian governments and militant quests for better democracy, livelihood and peace as in Northern Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Thailand or Ukraine. Other novel threats – real like the World Trade Center terror attacks or purposefully staged as in the case of alleged WMDs in Iraq – had a strong impact on changes in the security, conflict and peace environment, as well.

It was this kind of changes that caused or were paralleled by according adjustments particularly in the international security and defence sector. One effect was that after a drop in the aftermath of the Cold War – global military expenditures have been going up since 1998. In 2013 they reached a level that even topped spendings at the peak of the Cold War. A related result has been that military instead of civil, non-violent procedures remained dominating in international conflict intervention. In stark contrast to that, and despite the strongly increased role of the UN after the Cold War, its peace-related activities have remained dramatically underfunded. The UN budget total covers not even 2% of what is globally spent for military purposes.

Addressing and connecting these two contrary developments may be considered as a responsibility and an opportunity for the peace research community: To raise political and public awareness of this extreme misbalance, to develop alternatives and to show ways how to change this imbalance. Multifold empirical evidence that fundamentally questions the alleged success and costs of military conflict management are at hand already. In order to move forward we definitely need more studies of this kind that show, quantitatively and qualitatively, under which circumstances, with what targets and limited resources non-military dealing with conflict may be more effective, more efficient and sustainable – and hence, superior to military interference. This includes a redefinition of its role and extent, as well.